4 The Captain: My Review of the new Cadillac SRX4 3.0L

[Cmicasa the Great XvX]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

and who knows, maybe it will get a V8 in a couple model years. Thats just pure speculation on my part, nothing at all to back it up.

Based on what we kno of future V6 technologies... I'd say it's not even necessary to have a V8. I mean we have V6-Turbos that are more powerful now than the LS1 was in the C5... Hell Nissan has a V6Turbo that is more powerful than the LS3. Not saying I prefer Forced Induction over NA engines, but I damn sure ain't the average buyer.

[FenwickHockey65]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

and who knows, maybe it will get a V8 in a couple model years. Thats just pure speculation on my part, nothing at all to back it up.

I'm not sure a V8 will fit in the SRX...

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

Based on what we kno of future V6 technologies... I'd say it's not even necessary to have a V8. I mean we have V6-Turbos that are more powerful now than the LS1 was in the C5... Hell Nissan has a V6Turbo that is more powerful than the LS3. Not saying I prefer Forced Induction over NA engines, but I damn sure ain't the average buyer.

Its not about power. Or torque. Or even fuel economy. There are reasons why luxury brands have a tendancy towards higher cylinder counts even with relatively small engines. Engines like 2.5L V6's and 5.0L V10s could easily be replaced with an I4 and V8 respectively and make just as much power with a little more efficiency. But usually they don't do it. More cylinders give smoother power delivery and less vibration.

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

I'm not sure a V8 will fit in the SRX...

It'll fit. The chevy small block can fit in damm near anything bigger than a smart car. Its hardly any bigger than the V6 in the SRX. I think its a little lower and a tad wider but maybe an inch in either case. Only issue might be length. Even then, I bet its less than 6" different.

[syr74]

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

But that argument holds absolutely no water since...as U pointed out about an "existing platform..." the same platform that the old SRX used is still being used under the CTS. Even more to the point:

Not really. Without question, whether or not GM was going to produce this generation of SRX on a fwd or rwd platform there could be little doubt that they weren't likely to take another stab at the 'Outback-style without the butch styling' approach that they took with the first gen SRX. And that is really the problem here, there has never actually been a suv based on the Sigma platform since the truth is that the first gen SRX was really just a CTS wagon with a whole lot of ground clearance.

If you're going to try and produce a full on hybrid like the X5 or ML on Sigma architecture then the first reality to be considered is that chassis hardpoints for an suv are quite different than the chassis hardpoints you'll find in a sedan. That means that any potential X5/ML fighting suv based upon Sigma architecture is for all intents and purposes going to represent a new platform by the time all the needed changes are made, and that is if we accept the notion that building a full on hybrid suv like the X5 or ML is even possible on Sigma. And then you still have to face the reality that unless and until you find another Cadillac product to base upon such a chassis it would represent a stand alone piece. In other words a Sigma based suv platform would for all intent be a new platform.

Using Theta for the SRX was an entirely different scenario. That platform has existed since 2002 and underpins a slew of vehicles besides the SRX. No doubt, from a volume perspective building a vehicle to try and take a slice of the pie vehicles like the Lexus RX has proved is so lucrative had to prove attractive, but Cadillac playing in that segment also creates some conflict with Buick since GM claims the Buick brand is supposed to be countering entry level Lexus models, not Cadillac.

[Cmicasa the Great XvX]

Originally Posted by syr74

Not really. Without question, whether or not GM was going to produce this generation of SRX on a fwd or rwd platform there could be little doubt that they weren't likely to take another stab at the 'Outback-style without the butch styling' approach that they took with the first gen SRX. And that is really the problem here, there has never actually been a suv based on the Sigma platform since the truth is that the first gen SRX was really just a CTS wagon with a whole lot of ground clearance.

If you're going to try and produce a full on hybrid like the X5 or ML on Sigma architecture then the first reality to be considered is that chassis hardpoints for an suv are quite different than the chassis hardpoints you'll find in a sedan. That means that any potential X5/ML fighting suv based upon Sigma architecture is for all intents and purposes going to represent a new platform by the time all the needed changes are made, and that is if we accept the notion that building a full on hybrid suv like the X5 or ML is even possible on Sigma. And then you still have to face the reality that unless and until you find another Cadillac product to base upon such a chassis it would represent a stand alone piece. In other words a Sigma based suv platform would for all intent be a new platform.

Using Theta for the SRX was an entirely different scenario. That platform has existed since 2002 and underpins a slew of vehicles besides the SRX. No doubt, from a volume perspective building a vehicle to try and take a slice of the pie vehicles like the Lexus RX has proved is so lucrative had to prove attractive, but Cadillac playing in that segment also creates some conflict with Buick since GM claims the Buick brand is supposed to be countering entry level Lexus models, not Cadillac.

And once again U missed the part where it has been said thousands of times... including in my post above... that the SRX is not on THETA, and is not the same as the platform under the 'Nox, Terrain, or Vue... either Theta I or Theta II.

Hell... if my word isn't enuff then here's a quote directly from Cadillac Gen. Manager Nesbit:

The SRX is not the same as the Terrain or Equinox and is built around a different architecture and a much more sophisticated AWD system. The SRX offers a premium chassis and features that place it squarely in the mid-luxury utility class. We do not have plans for a 4-cylinder engine in the SRX, but the 3.0L direct injected V6 is best in its class for fuel economy. We are currently working on some convertible concepts for the future, so keep following Cadillac and recommending us to your friends. Thanks for your note!

http://www.gmreinvention.com/index.php/site/tell-fritz/

[syr74]

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

And once again U missed the part where it has been said thousands of times... including in my post above... that the SRX is not on THETA, and is not the same as the platform under the 'Nox, Terrain, or Vue... either Theta I or Theta II.

No, I saw it...I don't buy it, but I saw it. A luxury upgrade of Theta is still a Theta based platform. And there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that basing a new suv on a revised version of the existing Theta suv platform was a lot simpler scenario than trying to respin Sigma into a suv platform assuming that the latter is even possible.

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

Hell... if my word isn't enuff then here's a quote directly from Cadillac Gen. Manager Nesbit:

Of course, because he would have no interest in convincing people that the platform of a Cadillac isn't related to a lowly Chevy, and the fact that both platforms just happen to have Theta in the name is pure coincidence.

Frankly, I don't know why either of you are trying so hard to convince folks that this isn't an updated Theta.

[DGthe3]

If the SRX is on Theta then the Camaro is on Sigma

[Cmicasa the Great XvX]

Originally Posted by syr74

No, I saw it...I don't buy it, but I saw it. A luxury upgrade of Theta is still a Theta based platform. And there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that basing a new suv on a revised version of the existing Theta suv platform was a lot simpler scenario than trying to respin Sigma into a suv platform assuming that the latter is even possible.

Of course, because he would have no interest in convincing people that the platform of a Cadillac isn't related to a lowly Chevy, and the fact that both platforms just happen to have Theta in the name is pure coincidence.

Frankly, I don't know why either of you are trying so hard to convince folks that this isn't an updated Theta.

I can't figure out why it is so important to U to convince us that it is anything else. Furthermore it's almost a way for U to try and belittle a vehicle that is absolutely world class by connecting it to "lower end" models that are stellar by their own right.

A combination of Epsilon II and Theta II seems to be a more expensive exercise than taking the existing Sigma platform that was already in use in both the CTS II and STS... not to mention the existing SRX I.., and build a new SRX II on top of it. Platforms aren't only about the FRAME... they are about accommodations as well... and Sigma had it's limits, one of which was being RWD based. YUP I said RWD was limiting... mostly because the marketing/sales of these types of vehicles shows more success in the target demographic when it is in this type of wheel layout. The SRX I was a great vehicle... but it handled worse than the SRXII.. and it sold like hotcakes... at a Diet Fanatics Convention.

Why.. if I looked around at the market... and saw Lexus selling 100K CUVs (and yes the SRX I was a competitor to both the RX350 and X5 as they two are competitors themselves) and we were selling 20K CUVs... and losing money... would I not change the game plan? Hell the SRX was DEAD for MY 2010 if U remember. I think the realization of possible hybrid applications via the Provoq Concept was what spawned the Green-Light on the current SRX.

[syr74]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

If the SRX is on Theta then the Camaro is on Sigma

I would argue otherwise, and I think the name of the platform itself is the most damning evidence. Had the original vision for Sigma-lite lived I think you would have a comparison, and I think Ford's original plan for the current Mustang's platform, DEW-lite, would have made a good comparison as well had that plan not been eventually scrapped in favor of D2C. But, by all indications, the complete rethink that eventually spawned Zeta in place of Sigma lite and D2C in place of DEW-lite seems quite different from what we have with Theta Premium. Put more simple, a meaningful portion of Theta seems to have survived into Theta Premium, the same can't be said of Ford's D2C or even GM's Zeta unless I am mistaken.

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

I can't figure out why it is so important to U to convince us that it is anything else. Furthermore it's almost a way for U to try and belittle a vehicle that is absolutely world class by connecting it to "lower end" models that are stellar by their own right.

Nothing could be further from the truth. I have not disparaged the new SRX yet in this thread and don't intend to now. That said, I also cannot agree with the notion that this truck competes in any meaningful way with the X5 or ML class trucks. The new SRX competes directly with vehicles like the Lexus RX, not the X5 and ML.

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

A combination of Epsilon II and Theta II seems to be a more expensive exercise than taking the existing Sigma platform that was already in use in both the CTS II and STS... not to mention the existing SRX I.., and build a new SRX II on top of it.

I disagree completely here. In simplest terms Theta Premium appears to be an update of the basic Theta platform tweaked to accommodate slightly larger vehicles and fortified with a lot of the better pieces of Epsilon II to allow the platform to underpin premium offerings. That formula undoubtedly was used because it allowed for the hardpoints necessary to create a proper crossover suv to be carried over from the original Theta platform which would make the whole process much simpler and a great deal less expensive.

Sigma would be an entirely different story. First, as I stated earlier, the original SRX wasn't really a crossover, it was a wagon with a lot of ground clearance. That means that the hardpoints necessary to build a proper crossover, and most importantly the hardpoints that lead to the higher cowl and window line needed to build a crossover, simply don't exist on any version of the Sigma platform. Fixing those hardpoints, assuming that they can even be fixed as you cannot manipulate things like cowl height at will, would be extraordinarily expensive.

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

Platforms aren't only about the FRAME... they are about accommodations as well... and Sigma had it's limits, one of which was being RWD based. YUP I said RWD was limiting... mostly because the marketing/sales of these types of vehicles shows more success in the target demographic when it is in this type of wheel layout. The SRX I was a great vehicle... but it handled worse than the SRXII.. and it sold like hotcakes... at a Diet Fanatics Convention.

I never argued that there isn't more volume in this entry level, suv segment than exists in the segment vehicles like the X5 and ML play in. Still, volume isn't everything. My argument here was then and remains now that Cadillac has long claimed to be chasing the Germans and leaving Lexus for Buick. The new SRX creates a small problem here since we obviously now have a Cadillac SRX chasing Lexus instead of BMW and Mercedes.

My questions would then be
1: Has Cadillac/GM changed their mind about who is chasing whom?
2: If Caddy is chasing Lexus here then where does this leave Buick?

Originally Posted by Cmicasa the Great XvX

Why.. if I looked around at the market... and saw Lexus selling 100K CUVs (and yes the SRX I was a competitor to both the RX350 and X5 as they two are competitors themselves) and we were selling 20K CUVs... and losing money... would I not change the game plan? Hell the SRX was DEAD for MY 2010 if U remember. I think the realization of possible hybrid applications via the Provoq Concept was what spawned the Green-Light on the current SRX.

The first gen SRX was poorly conceived to be kind, but to be blunt that was more an indication of GM's questionable execution than problems with this particular segment. The Mercedes ML and BMW X5 both sell well enough segment considered.

And as I said before, if Cadillac wants to chase this segment I understand the reasons why. But then you have to decide where that leaves Buick since chasing Lexus, at least with regard to the ES and RX, was supposed to be their job.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by syr74

I would argue otherwise, and I think the name of the platform itself is the most damning evidence. Had the original vision for Sigma-lite lived I think you would have a comparison, and I think Ford's original plan for the current Mustang's platform, DEW-lite, would have made a good comparison as well had that plan not been eventually scrapped in favor of D2C. But, by all indications, the complete rethink that eventually spawned Zeta in place of Sigma lite and D2C in place of DEW-lite seems quite different from what we have with Theta Premium. Put more simple, a meaningful portion of Theta seems to have survived into Theta Premium, the same can't be said of Ford's D2C or even GM's Zeta unless I am mistaken.

You are mistaken. Although I can't talk smartly about the Ford platform Zeta was created essentially as a cheapened Sigma. A fair amount of parts are not only interchangeable but identical between the two. But the two are considered separate platforms due to the rest of their differences (compared to the G8 and Camaro which also have numerous differences, yet that is mostly a re-arranging of things not replacement of elements)

[syr74]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

You are mistaken. Although I can't talk smartly about the Ford platform Zeta was created essentially as a cheapened Sigma. A fair amount of parts are not only interchangeable but identical between the two. But the two are considered separate platforms due to the rest of their differences (compared to the G8 and Camaro which also have numerous differences, yet that is mostly a re-arranging of things not replacement of elements)

Zeta may be a poor example then, that said I don't know enough about the Sigma-Zeta relationship to form a hard and fast opinion hence the disclaimer in my post above. That said, I am somewhat more familiar with the evolution from Theta to Theta Premium, and given what I do know I am not willing to completely separate the two.

[Cmicasa the Great XvX]

Originally Posted by syr74

Nothing could be further from the truth. I have not disparaged the new SRX yet in this thread and don't intend to now. That said, I also cannot agree with the notion that this truck competes in any meaningful way with the X5 or ML class trucks. The new SRX competes directly with vehicles like the Lexus RX, not the X5 and ML.

The RX350 competes directly with the X5 and Benz ML... Hell I can provide evidence that most consumer revies.. well here U go:

2008 BMW X5 is available in 3.0si (MSRP $45,900) and 4.8i (MSRP $54,500) trim levels, and competes with the Audi Q7, Cadillac SRX, Infiniti FX35 and FX45, Acura RDX, Mazda CX-9, Lincoln MKX, Lexus GX, Mercedes-Benz M-Class, Porsche Cayenne, Volkswagen Touareg, Land Rover LR2 and Volvo XC90.

http://newcarbuyingguide.com/index.p...t=viewCat/1502

Wow.. that's a pretty broad spectrum of vehicles... and fortunately I don't many consumers who give a damn, let alone differentiate between the BMW's dynamics or any of the aforementioned competitors.

I disagree completely here. In simplest terms Theta Premium appears to be an update of the basic Theta platform tweaked to accommodate slightly larger vehicles and fortified with a lot of the better pieces of Epsilon II to allow the platform to underpin premium offerings. That formula undoubtedly was used because it allowed for the hardpoints necessary to create a proper crossover suv to be carried over from the original Theta platform which would make the whole process much simpler and a great deal less expensive.

Dude.. U can disagree all U want.. but truth of the matter is Cadillac's own GM says the platforms are different.. I'm inclined to agree with him and call what U are saying a load of crap. Even more to the point... even if the platform was DELTA (Cobalt).. hell GAMMA (Aveo)... as long as it drove and handled as well.. if not better than the X5... I would be damn pleased.

I am not a PLATFORM SNOB... and most of the buying public, when they here Epsilon, Sigma, Theta, etc.. think of their college years and nothing else.Personally I think GM should stop naming their platforms in such recognizable (amongst internet forum goers) names... and be like the rest of the industry.. who have platforms that cause U to go to WIKIPEDIA to find out the names.

Sigma would be an entirely different story. First, as I stated earlier, the original SRX wasn't really a crossover, it was a wagon with a lot of ground clearance. That means that the hardpoints necessary to build a proper crossover, and most importantly the hardpoints that lead to the higher cowl and window line needed to build a crossover, simply don't exist on any version of the Sigma platform. Fixing those hardpoints, assuming that they can even be fixed as you cannot manipulate things like cowl height at will, would be extraordinarily expensive.

Dude what U just described is what we call a CUV.. or better yet.. a crossover.

Crossover describes a vehicle that derives from a car platform while borrowing features from a traditional Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV).
While body on frame construction and light truck platforms are used to build traditional SUVs, crossovers use a car's monocoque/unibody platform construction. The crossover combines, in highly variable degrees, the design features such as tall interior packaging, high H-point seating, high ground-clearance, or all-wheel-drive capability of the SUV—with design features from an automobile such as independent rear suspension, car-like handling, interior roominess and fuel economy. WIKI

YUP!!! Sounds like an SRX to me.. both SIGMA and THET-EPSILON based Thanks for playin'

I never argued that there isn't more volume in this entry level, suv segment than exists in the segment vehicles like the X5 and ML play in. Still, volume isn't everything.

Actually it is.. and the lack of volume is what almost got the name SRX killed for 2010.

20,787 BMW X5 sales versus 73,641 RX350 sales certainly shows me where a company in GM's situation needs to be with it's luxury cuv

My argument here was then and remains now that Cadillac has long claimed to be chasing the Germans and leaving Lexus for Buick. The new SRX creates a small problem here since we obviously now have a Cadillac SRX chasing Lexus instead of BMW and Mercedes.

My questions would then be
1: Has Cadillac/GM changed their mind about who is chasing whom?
2: If Caddy is chasing Lexus here then where does this leave Buick?

Sorry.. but truth of the matter is that Lexus is all over the place. The LS460 certainly competes with the 7series and S-Class... the LX570 certainly competes with the Escalade, Range Rover, and GL450. The IS certainly competes with the 3 series and C-Class.

The fundemental differences that GM was talking about in relation to the Cadillac and Buick brands pretty much boils down to PRICE and PERFORMANCE. Even if Buick were to get a smaller CUV like the Saab 9-4X.. I'm pretty sure that it can be tuned to be softer and less sporty than than the SRX. which is damn sure a Sport tuned Luxo CUV. With a lil more juice... I guarantee would run with the X5 and even Cayenne. It damn sure handles as well.. at least in AWD config.

[Cmicasa the Great XvX]

Originally Posted by syr74

The first gen SRX was poorly conceived to be kind, but to be blunt that was more an indication of GM's questionable execution than problems with this particular segment. The Mercedes ML and BMW X5 both sell well enough segment considered.

More BS

This is from C&D Review from 2007... almost 4 years after the SRX had been on the seen

Introduction
Eighth Place: Land Rover LR3 HSE
Seventh Place: Volkswagen Touareg V-6
Sixth Place: Volvo XC90 Sport
Fifth Place: Lexus GX470
Fourth Place: Mercedes-Benz ML350
Third Place: BMW X5 3.0si
Second Place: Cadillac SRX AWD V-8
First Place: Acura MDX Sport
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/12669/eight-tickets-to-paradise-we-compare-eight-50000-luxury-suvs.html

From Article:
We’ve loved Cadillac’s SRX since we first set foot in a prototype early in 2003. Later that year, an SRX won a C/D comparo, beating a Porsche Cayenne S, no less, likely the first time a Cadillac ever humbled anything conceived in Weissach. Then this chiseled-nose crossover went on to earn 5Best Truck honors — three times.

It lost to the MDX basically because the MDX was brand new.. and the MDX had slightly better overall performance.

As for why the SRX failed on the market place... I will use my wife's own words.. with pictures...

"It looks like a wagon.. and I'm American.. I don't wanna be seen in a wagon..." Cmicasa's Wife

[TheCaptain]

I don't know what all the hate is over wagons though... like seriously, you don't think your SUV/CUV isn't a wagon on steriods? lol
The old SRX had some strong points and weak points, but i think the new SRX is a better overall package with only one (perceived) weak point. Engine size.
The engine size should be suffucient enough for what I and most of the buying public use the vehicle for, and the handling makes up in the sportiness department... so i am pleased!